High Court Kerala High Court

K.Narayanankutty vs The Authorized Officer on 27 September, 2010

Kerala High Court
K.Narayanankutty vs The Authorized Officer on 27 September, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 17361 of 2010(U)


1. K.NARAYANANKUTTY,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. K.REKHA, W/O.K.NARAYANANKUTTY,
3. K.REMADEVI, KUNDIL HOUSE,

                        Vs



1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,

3. P.A.SALAVUDEEN, M/S.FASHION MAGIC,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.A.CHACKO

                For Respondent  :SRI.K.P.SUDHEER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM

 Dated :27/09/2010

 O R D E R
                   C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J
                 ---------------------------------
                W.P(C) No.17361 of 2010-U
                ------------------------------------
        Dated this the 27th day of September, 2010.

                       J U D G M E N T

The petitioners are the guarantors with respect to a

working capital loan availed by the third respondent, from

the second respondent Bank, in the year 2008. Consequent

to default committed by the third respondent, immovable

properties belonging to the petitioners, which were

mortgaged for securing the loan in question, were

proceeded against. On invoking Section 14(1) of the Act

Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and

Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act).

respondents 1 and 2 had approached the Chief Judicial

Magistrate Court and an Advocate Commissioner was

already been appointed to take over possession of the

immovable properties. Ext.P2 is the notice issued by the

Advocate Commissioner requesting to handover possession

of the immovable properties. The proceedings is impugned

on various grounds.

W.P(C) No.17361 of 2010-U 2

2. In a counter affidavit filed on behalf of the

respondents 1 and 2 it is alleged that the third respondent,

in collusion with the petitioners, had diverted the funds and

closed down the business. It is contended that the

petitioners are now adopting delaying tactics in collusion

with the third respondent. With respect to the request of

the petitioners to permit regularisation of the loan account,

it is mentioned that, since there is diversion of funds and

closing down of the business the loan account could not be

regularised. It is mentioned that, as on 30.8.2010, a sum of

Rs.11,95,000/- is the outstanding dues.

3. It is pertinent to note that the proceedings

initiated under the SARFAESI Act is at the stage of Section

14(1). The petitioners had not chosen to object the demand

raised under Section 13(2) nor they have approached the

appellate authority invoking Section 17(1). Fact being so, I

am not at all inclined to interfere with the proceedings by

invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India. Hence the writ petition is not sustainable and the

W.P(C) No.17361 of 2010-U 3

same is liable to be dismissed.

4. However, learned counsel for the petitioners

made an appeal to this Court to permit payment of the

entire balance within a reasonable time in instalments. It is

submitted that the petitioners are not intending to peruse

any statutory remedy and that they are ready to

relinquishing all challenges with respect to proceedings

now initiated.

5. On the basis of an interim order issued by this

Court on 4.6.2010, the petitioners had remitted a sum of

Rs.2,00,000/-. Considering the facts and circumstances

attendant in this case, eventhough interference on merits is

not at all possible, I am inclined to show indulgence in

permitting the petitioners to pay off the balance amount

within a reasonable time, in instalments.

6. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of

directing the respondents to keep in abeyance further

coercive steps for dispossession and sale of the secured

assets, provided the petitioners remit the entire balance in 7

W.P(C) No.17361 of 2010-U 4

(seven) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before

15.11.2010 and on or before the 15th day of succeeding

months.

7. It is made clear that on the event of default in

payment of any of the instalments, the respondents will be

free to proceed with further steps based on the notice

already issued and on such event, the petitioners are

precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against

such proceedings, either before this Court or before any

other forum.

Sd/-

C.K.ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE

//True Copy//

P.A to Judge
ab